Why do we rarely see changes reflective of what players are actually asking for?

[Batalix.2873]

14 minutes ago, Echostorm.9143 said:

I agree that no matter what they do people will drift to meta builds but I disagree with the disdain you seem to have to the mech and virt builds.  The notion that a class is only good if it has an unforgiving 60 step rotation is the sort of try hard elitism that pushes casuals, the vast majority population of the game away to other titles. There need to be low intensity builds that can still put up respectable numbers, that isn't bad design, if anything it is correcting for years of wildly over complicating combat to placate the loudest voices.

It's not that they are simple, it is that they are overtuned and/or have too much utility for being so simple. With Virt doing too much damage for being a ranged DPS, and Mech doing too much of everything at range.

I would further argue that, simple rotation or not, both have pretty poor concepts. Virt, despite having some undertones of psychic abilities and some sort of musician theming, doesn't really communicate either of those aspects. It's just blades across all traits with no real support builds. And Mech just allows the J-Mech to do too much at range on top of the player being able to play core Engi (already very strong), also at range--a properly balanced Mech spec would have removed the player's ability to do weapon damage and replaced it with remotely controlling the mech more.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[Cuks.8241]

In general the last thing I want is for the devs to listen to the players for balance. Most players fall into biased or just plain bad (to be clear I dont exclude myself from these groups). Just read class forums. And most vocal are usually the worst. 

That doesnt mean they should not read proposals especially when it comes to game flavour, gameplay style.  There are good proposal somewhere in all the cesspool. 

Ive been playing different multiplayer games for over 25 years and without exception all the forums were mostly biased QQ and balance was always "the worst" even if the game was regarded as one of the better balanced. 

 

[Helgaley.3619]

28 minutes ago, Cuks.8241 said:

In general the last thing I want is for the devs to listen to the players for balance. Most players fall into biased or just plain bad (to be clear I dont exclude myself from these groups). Just read class forums. And most vocal are usually the worst. 

That doesnt mean they should not read proposals especially when it comes to game flavour, gameplay style.  There are good proposal somewhere in all the cesspool. 

Ive been playing different multiplayer games for over 25 years and without exception all the forums were mostly biased QQ and balance was always "the worst" even if the game was regarded as one of the better balanced. 

 

Players aren't great at fixing problems, but we're very good at identifying them. It's Anets job to fix those problems, but they seem to be making them worse. They also don't need to consider every idea that comes up, but there are always going to be common trends that Anet can work with to make changes that would make the majority of players at least content. 

If the players identify something as a problem and offer a number of suggestions on how to fix it, Anet should be able to take that feedback and combine it with whatever data they have on hand to create a solution that actually works. For example, the boon ball meta in wvw has been problematic for years, so the solution in this patch should not have been to nerf boon corruption and strips. Quickness and alacrity are also problematic buffs that have become mandatory, but the solution is not to just slap it on every specialization without any consideration as to whether it even makes sense. 

[Cuks.8241]

8 minutes ago, Helgaley.3619 said:

Players aren't great at fixing problems, but we're very good at identifying them. It's Anets job to fix those problems, but they seem to be making them worse. They also don't need to consider every idea that comes up, but there are always going to be common trends that Anet can work with to make changes that would make the majority of players at least content. 

If the players identify something as a problem and offer a number of suggestions on how to fix it, Anet should be able to take that feedback and combine it with whatever data they have on hand to create a solution that actually works. For example, the boon ball meta in wvw has been problematic for years, so the solution in this patch should not have been to nerf boon corruption and strips. Quickness and alacrity are also problematic buffs that have become mandatory, but the solution is not to just slap it on every specialization without any consideration as to whether it even makes sense. 

No, we are not good at identifying problems when it comes to balance because we dont even have the data. And that's the basic requirement to be able to identify anything. 

The boon ball meta is a problem for you. I don't mind boon ball meta because I mostly play in WvW with my guild and we are mostly doing open field fights against other guild boon balls and I enjoy trying to get the best squad composition that gets most out of boons. Could there be a different meta we would enjoy? Sure. But I dont see it as a problem, its an interesting cooperative concept that I dont get to experience in other games I play which for me is fun.

So you see we have 2 completely valid takes on the matter. But we dont have the data on how many players enjoy what so we can't really propose the best objective solution. I can also say that I am on several WvW discords with hundreds of players altogether and don't remember complaints about boon ball meta. And oppose to that I see only a few players complaining in forums. And I can't even tell how much these forum players play WvW and what their communities are like and how committed they are to the mode. 

[JTGuevara.9018]

1 hour ago, Cuks.8241 said:

No, we are not good at identifying problems when it comes to balance because we dont even have the data. And that's the basic requirement to be able to identify anything. 

The boon ball meta is a problem for you. I don't mind boon ball meta because I mostly play in WvW with my guild and we are mostly doing open field fights against other guild boon balls and I enjoy trying to get the best squad composition that gets most out of boons. Could there be a different meta we would enjoy? Sure. But I dont see it as a problem, its an interesting cooperative concept that I dont get to experience in other games I play which for me is fun.

So you see we have 2 completely valid takes on the matter. But we dont have the data on how many players enjoy what so we can't really propose the best objective solution. I can also say that I am on several WvW discords with hundreds of players altogether and don't remember complaints about boon ball meta. And oppose to that I see only a few players complaining in forums. And I can't even tell how much these forum players play WvW and what their communities are like and how committed they are to the mode. 

In other words, you benefit from the boon-ball so there is no problem!

Yeah man. Gotcha.

[Serephen.3420]

On 6/10/2023 at 3:39 PM, Helgaley.3619 said:

This is a reasonable response. What really bothers me is that the June 2022 balance patch also left a lot of people scratching their heads, and then those Discord chats leaked and we saw the lead balance dev admitting flat out to 1) making design decisions based on personal preference and 2) being so unfamiliar with other professions he had to use the wiki. That individual also happened to be responsible for designing the mechanist, and he enjoyed staff mirage, and both of those specializations received buffs that year. 

This year, for the June 2023 patch, we have a lead balance dev who mains elementalist and who has a PVP background, and we have a balance patch that's still filled with head scratchers, but it also just happens to buff a number of elementalist skills and traits used in PVP builds. 

I think it's fine for developers to put their own personal stamp on a profession that reflects their vision for the class, but that isn't what we're seeing. This is just personal bias. 

I respect your opinion on that matter but to be fair ele has been playing catchup this past year, and while there are no major nerfs for a change for ele in this patch (is this a miracle??)

Not all the changes are exactly outstanding and there are a number of issues not yet addressed just like with some other classes. That said, we can't reasonably expect then to fix and get everything right in one patch. Ele got a decent amount of nerfs the past few patches including some knee jerk ones to boot.

I think it's safer to see how this plays out first before crying wolf when you see a fox.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Serephen.3420

[Gendalfs.7521]

1 hour ago, Serephen.3420 said:

I think it's safer to see how this plays out first before crying wolf when you see a fox.

Problem is, balance patches happen only 4 times a year. They could be more frequent.

[Serephen.3420]

9 minutes ago, Gendalfs.7521 said:

Problem is, balance patches happen only 4 times a year. They could be more frequent.

That would help more ideally yes. But that also comes with its own set of problems and challenges. 

[soulknight.9620]

1 hour ago, Gendalfs.7521 said:

Problem is, balance patches happen only 4 times a year. They could be more frequent.

The sad truth is - they cant be more frequent. The way anet organised its production its basically: 1) gather feedback, 2) identify the problem, 3) find an apropriate solution, 4) get the coding done (or changing figures), 5) testing, 6) on the go changes if something went wrong during the tests 7) balance preview, 8 ) gathering feedback on the changes, 9) assembling and update package 10) changes go live. 

Every one of these steps takes time. And anet do not have resources and staff to get several "lines" of balancing going at the time. So it takes them 3 months to go through the abovementioned processes. 

And the worse part is gw2 is built up that way that a single change in a single number can drastically change how a class plays. And anet taken the "lets change this a bit and wait to see what will happen" approach to balancing. 

Both of the abovementioned is what results in questionable changes every 3 months. 

[Burnfall.9573]

On 6/10/2023 at 2:39 AM, Helgaley.3619 said:

This is a reasonable response. What really bothers me is that the June 2022 balance patch also left a lot of people scratching their heads, and then those Discord chats leaked and we saw the lead balance dev admitting flat out to 1) making design decisions based on personal preference and 2) being so unfamiliar with other professions he had to use the wiki. That individual also happened to be responsible for designing the mechanist, and he enjoyed staff mirage, and both of those specializations received buffs that year. 

This year, for the June 2023 patch, we have a lead balance dev who mains elementalist and who has a PVP background, and we have a balance patch that's still filled with head scratchers, but it also just happens to buff a number of elementalist skills and traits used in PVP builds. 

I think it's fine for developers to put their own personal stamp on a profession that reflects their vision for the class, but that isn't what we're seeing. This is just personal bias. 

Same situation with Thief Profession. Thief Profession has a Dev lead since Guild Wars 2 beta, whose insurance in keeping Thief Profession design and Its stealth.. in its Toxic state including its Stealth Mechanic.

Bias and Favoritism are the main Influencers and decision maker behind those Profession design and its balances.

It Provides, Guarantees and Secures their Unprecedented Dominance and Supremacy in the playing field 

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by Burnfall.9573

[Burnfall.9573]

On 6/10/2023 at 4:34 AM, foxof.8752 said:

The truth will get deleted.

"Some people think that the truth can be hidden with a little cover-up and decoration. But as time goes by, what is true is revealed, and what is fake fades away."

[enkeny.6937]

Well as a ranger main, we get a lot of ideas implemented.
Like petless ranger, someone posted the merge mechanics, we've got soulbeast
saying celestial avatar form need some conditions, we've got eclipse (took some years ...)
we wanted alacrity to go from spirits to grace of the land (and now complaining because we've got it... rangers 😄 )
we posted fervent force change from cd reduction to quickness, we've got it.
After we said unleash mechanic is not enough and too much time to switch, we've got cd reduction and ambush skills.
we wanted soulbeast and druid trade-off undone, we've got it.
we want our spirits to walk again, but we won't get it! 😄 

What people want and what is good for them usually not the same. 

[Burnfall.9573]

1 hour ago, enkeny.6937 said:

Well as a ranger main, we get a lot of ideas implemented.
Like petless ranger, someone posted the merge mechanics, we've got soulbeast
saying celestial avatar form need some conditions, we've got eclipse (took some years ...)
we wanted alacrity to go from spirits to grace of the land (and now complaining because we've got it... rangers 😄 )
we posted fervent force change from cd reduction to quickness, we've got it.
After we said unleash mechanic is not enough and too much time to switch, we've got cd reduction and ambush skills.
we wanted soulbeast and druid trade-off undone, we've got it.
we want our spirits to walk again, but we won't get it! 😄 

What people want and what is good for them usually not the same. 

As also a Ranger Profession; in the beginning of Guild Wars 2; Ranger Profession had a dev, his name began with H. He was Open and Transparent with the Ranger Profession Community.

Yet even so, with poor decisions (out of his control) being made to Ranger Profession, he was Honest and Truthful to the reasons why those changes were being made and were made to the Ranger Profession.

He was the best dev that the Ranger Profession Community ever had.

Unfortunately, his job expired. 

Throughout time, Ranger Profession had many poor decisions going against it, alongside with the Necromancer Profession being at the most Abused, Harassed, Ridiculed and Mistreated Profession in the game.

As a Necromancer Profession; we were cast from joining group parties, Ridiculed by all Professions for being who we are.

Even enemies foes, would Fixate their attack directly at us more than the other Professions.

Lastly, till this day, Necromancer Profession remain being, every Professions Scapegoat Profession  and having our Enjoyments.. cut short 'short lived', whenever the state of Balance is out of control.

Whereas, Ranger Profession has dramatically Progressed throughout the years.

While Thief Profession are given continual Approval Contributable Support,  to be the Only Profession; for 11 consecutive years, to Abuse, Manipulate and Exploit the game environment and to the players experience.. without Repercussion.

So much so,

Anet, copied Necromancer Profession; Shroud and gave it to Thief Profession

including, copying  Mesmer Profession Portal 

https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Shadow_Portal

 

For What??

 

Guild Wars Cornerstone, was not built on Grandiose, Bias, Favoritism, Manipulative Abusive Tactics, Tyrannical-Authoritarian Profession Design Ideology

Edited June 16, 2023 by Burnfall.9573

[Cuks.8241]

18 hours ago, JTGuevara.9018 said:

In other words, you benefit from the boon-ball so there is no problem!

Yeah man. Gotcha.

Exactly. You wrote like a game benefiting it's players is somehow wrong. 

[Thevaultdwellinggamer.4267]

On 6/9/2023 at 11:38 PM, Xenesis.6389 said:

Discord. Personal bias. Advice from their "friends" and class "professionals". 🤷‍♂️

It's pretty ironic too considering how both the devs and content creator like mighty gaslighted the community into accepting this garbage.

Homogenization also plays an important role into why changes aren't reflective to what players are asking for. The Devs literally pinned themselves into the corner by standardizing everything that made each class unique. Every single unique buff or synergy gets gutted up to this point, or replaced with boons that doesn't do half of a good job than the original buff a trait/skill had. Just look at banners Warrior used to had.

And then you have quickness and alacrity. The Devs are balancing around these two boons, alone. These two boons, right here. They already given this boon to nearly every class in the game, adding on to that Homogenization thing I've mentioned previously. 75% of their balancing is influenced by these two boons. That's how over the top these boons are, and franky, it's unhealthy for the game and needs to be removed.

People keep saying cmc unchained or whatever, as if he was making a difference from this point on. The only thing I've seen different is the increase in power creep. other than that, it's the same kitten different lead dev.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Thevaultdwellinggamer.4267

[Echostorm.9143]

On 6/15/2023 at 1:44 PM, Batalix.2873 said:

It's not that they are simple, it is that they are overtuned and/or have too much utility for being so simple. With Virt doing too much damage for being a ranged DPS, and Mech doing too much of everything at range.

I would further argue that, simple rotation or not, both have pretty poor concepts. Virt, despite having some undertones of psychic abilities and some sort of musician theming, doesn't really communicate either of those aspects. It's just blades across all traits with no real support builds. And Mech just allows the J-Mech to do too much at range on top of the player being able to play core Engi (already very strong), also at range--a properly balanced Mech spec would have removed the player's ability to do weapon damage and replaced it with remotely controlling the mech more.

What's wrong with having range?  This game is so punishing to melee with red circles everywhere, esp around mobs that playing without range is an exercise in frustration and frequent deaths.  There is no standard for how much damage things have to do at certain ranges, you're just forcing your own opinions and being forced to only remote control a mech sounds terrible.  Also you're the only person in this game who things core Engi is very strong.  Are you sure we're playing the same game?

[Sweetbread.3678]

13 minutes ago, Echostorm.9143 said:

What's wrong with having range?  This game is so punishing to melee with red circles everywhere, esp around mobs that playing without range is an exercise in frustration and frequent deaths.  There is no standard for how much damage things have to do at certain ranges, you're just forcing your own opinions and being forced to only remote control a mech sounds terrible.  Also you're the only person in this game who things core Engi is very strong.  Are you sure we're playing the same game?

This is why the Devs should not be relying entirely on forum player feedback. You literally say that the game is punishing to melee specs and then can't comprehend why a melee spec should be doing more damage than a ranged spec that completely ignores all of those challenges melee has to deal with.

It's like just the most basic concept of risk vs. reward seems to completely fly over a lot of players heads. It seems like their entire concept of good game design is either buffing their preferred playstyle into infinity with 0 consideration for how that affects every other playstyle's viability, or the devs creating something so dumbed down that it just flat out ignores half of the game's mechanics, because apparently winning by default is somehow more fun to them than actually playing a game that's deeper than a puddle.

It's like if chess was just released in the past decade, you'd already have these people trying to turn it into checkers, because of "elitism" or some nonsense.

[Batalix.2873]

51 minutes ago, Echostorm.9143 said:

What's wrong with having range?  This game is so punishing to melee with red circles everywhere, esp around mobs that playing without range is an exercise in frustration and frequent deaths.  There is no standard for how much damage things have to do at certain ranges, you're just forcing your own opinions and being forced to only remote control a mech sounds terrible.  Also you're the only person in this game who things core Engi is very strong.  Are you sure we're playing the same game?

Virt has been broken since launch because it was designed with the simplicity and power of a melee spec with no obligation to actually engage with any mechanics (arguably a problem that Scourge had made worse). It and Mech quite literally circumvent most mechanics. That is very bad for game design when the devs allow classes to quite literally not engage with most of the game and do competitive DPS.

And yes Engi for years had a reputation of being very robust, and between rifle and kits it has some of the best easy ranged damage and slot flexibility. A redesign without weapons would still have kits so that's not as boring as you think. And furthermore, if not lazily  autoattacking with rifle is what you would miss about a freaking robot mech spec, your priorities are, bluntly, whack.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Batalix.2873

[Helgaley.3619]

3 hours ago, Sweetbread.3678 said:

This is why the Devs should not be relying entirely on forum player feedback. You literally say that the game is punishing to melee specs and then can't comprehend why a melee spec should be doing more damage than a ranged spec that completely ignores all of those challenges melee has to deal with.

It's like just the most basic concept of risk vs. reward seems to completely fly over a lot of players heads. It seems like their entire concept of good game design is either buffing their preferred playstyle into infinity with 0 consideration for how that affects every other playstyle's viability, or the devs creating something so dumbed down that it just flat out ignores half of the game's mechanics, because apparently winning by default is somehow more fun to them than actually playing a game that's deeper than a puddle.

It's like if chess was just released in the past decade, you'd already have these people trying to turn it into checkers, because of "elitism" or some nonsense.

I can only speak for myself, but I think part of the problem is that some classes have had their "reward" nerfed while retaining the same level of risk. Just as an example, if the devs want all classes to be within the same relative band of DPS, then what's the point of having glass professions like thief and elementalist? Their "cannon" isn't any more effective than other classes, but they still have to contend with having "glass" survivability and relatively more challenging rotations. 

I think it's fine to have a few glass cannon ranged specs that can outdps melee specs because those glass ranged classes don't really bring anything else to group content, and in pvp content, yes they can deal high damage quickly, but they'll die just as quickly once a melee class catches them. 

[Sweetbread.3678]

20 hours ago, Helgaley.3619 said:

I can only speak for myself, but I think part of the problem is that some classes have had their "reward" nerfed while retaining the same level of risk. Just as an example, if the devs want all classes to be within the same relative band of DPS, then what's the point of having glass professions like thief and elementalist? Their "cannon" isn't any more effective than other classes, but they still have to contend with having "glass" survivability and relatively more challenging rotations. 

I think it's fine to have a few glass cannon ranged specs that can outdps melee specs because those glass ranged classes don't really bring anything else to group content, and in pvp content, yes they can deal high damage quickly, but they'll die just as quickly once a melee class catches them. 

Agreed. I think it's ironic, because imo most of the classes/specs that people seem to consider poorly designed like Ele are exactly the opposite. Their only issue is that they're some of the only things remaining that actually have some sort of adherence to a balance philosophy that contains any sort of concept of strengths/weaknesses and having their max dps locked behind an actual skill-check. Most everything else has had the entire notion of effort vs. output and risk vs. reward powercrept (or straight up designed from the start, ala Mechanist or Virt) out of existence.

It's hard to tell where they're going with balance going forward, but I'd say the trend toward homogenization points to them being more aware of the game's macro balance instead of picking favorites, although hopefully they can find the sweet spot between everything being pushed into the same homogenized but balanced alac/quick/heal/dps roles and classes still having identity. Also things like Virt losing block on it's F5 points to them grappling with the fact that ease-of-access can't eclipse concepts like risk vs. reward without the whole game suffering in the long run. Like I really doubt that something like Mechanist would be created again with their current balance team structure, but who knows at this point. Time will tell.

[ventress.4879]

On 6/10/2023 at 6:39 PM, Helgaley.3619 said:

This is a reasonable response. What really bothers me is that the June 2022 balance patch also left a lot of people scratching their heads, and then those Discord chats leaked and we saw the lead balance dev admitting flat out to 1) making design decisions based on personal preference and 2) being so unfamiliar with other professions he had to use the wiki. That individual also happened to be responsible for designing the mechanist, and he enjoyed staff mirage, and both of those specializations received buffs that year. 

This year, for the June 2023 patch, we have a lead balance dev who mains elementalist and who has a PVP background, and we have a balance patch that's still filled with head scratchers, but it also just happens to buff a number of elementalist skills and traits used in PVP builds. 

I think it's fine for developers to put their own personal stamp on a profession that reflects their vision for the class, but that isn't what we're seeing. This is just personal bias. 

Wasn't the problem before this discord leak and all pior balance patches is that there was no vision for each class. 

The discord leaks proved one thing, that Arena Net was actually playing the game and the balance team did have some personal opinions on the balance. 

I think people have very rosey interpretation of early Guild Wars 2 which was pretty horrible. I mean prior to EoD we had some unkillable PvE builds and Necro dominated most game modes. 

[Helgaley.3619]

23 hours ago, Sweetbread.3678 said:

Agreed. I think it's ironic, because imo most of the classes/specs that people seem to consider poorly designed like Ele are exactly the opposite. Their only issue is that they're some of the only things remaining that actually have some sort of adherence to a balance philosophy that contains any sort of concept of strengths/weaknesses and having their max dps locked behind an actual skill-check. Most everything else has had the entire notion of effort vs. output and risk vs. reward powercrept (or straight up designed from the start, ala Mechanist or Virt) out of existence.

It's hard to tell where they're going with balance going forward, but I'd say the trend toward homogenization points to them being more aware of the game's macro balance instead of picking favorites, although hopefully they can find the sweet spot between everything being pushed into the same homogenized but balanced alac/quick/heal/dps roles and classes still having identity. Also things like Virt losing block on it's F5 points to them grappling with the fact that ease-of-access can't eclipse concepts like risk vs. reward without the whole game suffering in the long run. Like I really doubt that something like Mechanist would be created again with their current balance team structure, but who knows at this point. Time will tell.

Yeah, I spend most of my time on ele and definitely have complaints, but it is balanced with performance trade offs depending on your weapon and traits. It just can't compete with easier specializations that can do everything it can do but with less effort and fewer risks. I wish they would stop making this apprehensive and cautious number adjustments and address the poor playability of several professions before they go about trying to slap on alacrity/quickness wherever they can fit. Quickness catalyst still feels awful, quickness deadeye sounds like a mess, alacrity scrounge sounds like it will be DOA... It's like they're trying to solve old problems by creating new problems that they'll also never address. Lol. 

[xellink.7568]

Some players think that they are the MC of an Isekai when they play MMOs. 

[DeceiverX.8361]

Because

1.)  ANet could never keep up.  Can you imagine if they started by far and large taking generalized feedback?  The forum pages would be hundreds of pages long with everyone wanting their voice heard to make an impact on the game.

2.)  Extending from #1, most player suggestions are bad and not worth actually considering.  Like really as an example, even as a diehard thief player I took so much flak for like ten years trying to propose changes to SA to make camping stealth less viable, and there were a lot of people over the years insisting their vision of their anime-character-ultra-cool-assassin should be able to just indefinitely and without effort sit in stealth with no counters or tells on their engage of sources of damage.  A lot of people just want "buffs for me and not for thee" versus actually good design for a competitive atmosphere.

There are some voices of reason here, but they're few and far between, and that number is shrinking as those voices have largely gone quiet over the years when they've recognized their efforts are for truly nothing in the end, and the game is measurably getting worse.

[Burnfall.9573]

1 hour ago, DeceiverX.8361 said:

Because

1.)  ANet could never keep up.  Can you imagine if they started by far and large taking generalized feedback?  The forum pages would be hundreds of pages long with everyone wanting their voice heard to make an impact on the game.

2.)  Extending from #1, most player suggestions are bad and not worth actually considering.  Like really as an example, even as a diehard thief player I took so much flak for like ten years trying to propose changes to SA to make camping stealth less viable, and there were a lot of people over the years insisting their vision of their anime-character-ultra-cool-assassin should be able to just indefinitely and without effort sit in stealth with no counters or tells on their engage of sources of damage.  A lot of people just want "buffs for me and not for thee" versus actually good design for a competitive atmosphere.

There are some voices of reason here, but they're few and far between, and that number is shrinking as those voices have largely gone quiet over the years when they've recognized their efforts are for truly nothing in the end, and the game is measurably getting worse.

Past

(1)  https://forum-en.gw2archive.eu/forum/game/gw2

 

Present

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/forum/11-guild-wars-2-discussion/

 

“History repeats itself because nobody listens the first time.”